You're making his point for him.
Duncan Robinson is one of the examples par excellence of Beilen employing that exact competitive advantage: "finding and developing talent other schools pass over."
In 2021, 54% of gun-related deaths in the US were suicides, while 43% were murders. (The last 3% were labeled as accidents, law enforcement, or undetermined circumstances)
Mullings looked great AGAIN. There's plenty of reason to be excited about Hall. I'd love to have Edwards back, but even if he leaves, we'll be better than okay at RB. Maybe not best in conference anymore, but plenty talented.
Why should the players sacrifice their opportunity to play to fix this mess that coaches and administrators have created?
Yes our players are fine upstanding young men, and yes they probably believe in the righteousness of the cause, but they've practiced who knows how many 1000s of hours to compete at the highest level of football, and they get maybe 15 games this year (and only a couple that are even competitive).
These games are a once in a lifetime opportunity they can never give back. No one who isn't a player should suggest the players give up a game.
They're famous b/c of the how universally clear it now is that real evidence for those things didn't exist.
That consensus is rare, b/c of what we've come to understand about human beliefs relate to facts and feelings.
On average, people tend to retain their beliefs in spite of any disproving facts, precisely because the commitment to feelings is stronger than the commitment to facts. That's not an exception, it's how human brains work.
Are you kidding? Do you watch football only for the final score or bragging rights?
Watching the variations in success game by game would be FASCINATING.
Observers could speculate endlessly regarding the impact of variables changing game by game. From easy obvious ones like weather and injuries, to subjective unmeasurables like momentum or ennui, to player improvement over time. Of course most interesting would be the watching strategic changes in the play-calling chess match, particularly as you watched the playbook grow early in the season.
You've had some excellent points in this long debate, but your increasing focus on picky details is really detracting from your primary point. You'd persuade lot more people if you found a way to be more gracious.
Given how the model shows UM superior to OSU in 3 of 4 phases, that's clearly true, particularly when our running advantage is huge, while OSU's passing advantage is not quite so large.
I wondered if this was due to the imbalance between passing and rushing in typical college games. That might explain things given that UM's superiority is in the phase of the game that typically provides less yards. But the (very simplistic) numbers didn't add up.
Assume a typical team passes for 238 yards/game and rushes for 156 yards/game.
57% better rush offense than 156 gives UM an extra ~90 rush yards.
40% better pass defense than 238 gives OSU an extra ~95 yards(takes away 95 yards from UM)
If we then did the math for UM's slight advantages in pass offense and rush defense, it would show UM with a clear yardage advantage in our simplistic model.
In sum - I think we should assume the model is fairly more sophisticated than an Associated Press game summary.
(I didn't bother to dig for high quality stats. These are from ncaa.com's 65th ranked FBS pass offense and rushing offense)
Thanks.
I got the foolishness of that MLB alignment then, but this context today really helps illuminate what should have been happening, and why that MLB alignment was even worse than I'd understood.
It's not amazing visually, but that is the exact data point I my brain was demanding when I read your column the second week - SP+ rating change over time. Thanks for adding it.
But remember that game when Iowa put up 55 points on OSU after their offense was terrible all year long? Iowa can do that. It's like they pull a star in classic Mario, and suddenly they're temporarily powerful.
While that first sentence is true, the real issue is our absentee starters: Rod Moore, Makari Paige, and Will Johnson. If they come back, we're probably fine.
Are you using that blind stat comparison to suggest that Cade and Milton weren't that different in their last 140 attempts?
It shows exactly the opposite - the value provided is vastly different.
A 14/0 TD/INT ratio is light years ahead of a 5/6 TD/INT ratio. That kind of difference switches 4 W's into 4 L's. That Milton had yards & completion %s in striking distance doesn't move the needle.
Three cheers for Milton and his turnaround at Tennessee. May he succeed spectacularly this year. But in 2021, we were probably an 8-4 team in 2021 with him at QB, with BPONE reigning over us. Thank God for Cade.
Great visuals and section titles. I'll keep reading this.
It would be sad but also hilarious if after 25+ years at Iowa, Ferentz senior was forced out bc he broke some rules/commitments in order to keep his son in staff. And all this bc Ferentz junior was (truly terrible at his job, but) only slightly worse at his job than most Iowa OC's in the last century.
This is surprising news, but I think the headline is a bit misleading.
The O-line starting 5 may be confirmed (for now), but no coach quotes actually say that Barnhart and Hinton played better in these 2 games than Henderson and Jones did.
I think we all took this "Michigan Method" plan to mean that players get a chance to start and show what they've got in games. That really hasn't happened. It's pretty clear decisions are being made largely on the basis of practice time. That's fine, of course, but not what we all thought was being advertised to us.
I like the diary concept. Thanks for taking the time.
Question for the cosmos - Why does Penn State seems to be constitutionally unable to field a good OL?
Is Franklin really such a clone of Hoke (with a little upgrade, maybe)? A great recruiter, but not a great tactician and terrible at time-management, usually fields an excellent defense (except in the games they where blow up), but struggles to put it all together on offense, and the OL feels like a big reason why.
FSU's QB really made their offense go in the 1st half, but he also made 2 truly terrible decisions worse than any JJ made last year. I'm skeptical he's Heisman material.
I couldn't find it in my quick search, but there are clips of UM players on the sideline raising folding chairs in celebration during games the last year or two. It felt emblematic of the new era Brian's pointing to.
I'm not as down on him as many seem to be, but has he demonstrated any improvement during these last 3 years?
I'm genuinely curious. It seems like he arrived fully formed, and all performance variation we've seen is just statistical noise - luck and effects of opponent and teammate differences. But I haven't been watching these last 2 years closely at all.
You've identified asymmetry, and that's always worth looking into to double check. But you failed to identify anything that's actually wrong. You're just assuming it's wrong b/c it is asymmetric. That's a great way to get faulty analysis. And it's a really weak position for the level of critique you're pointing at the OP.
For myself, it seems clear after watching Moore and Graham that there is every reason to expect a leap. Jenkins is more about trusting insider talk. I myself am doubtful McGregor will take a leap, but there is a reasonable logic behind believing he will.
I do not know the OSU those players at all, so I have no idea whether it's reasonable to expect a leap there. Do you know? Or are you just expecting an equal amount of improvement between players on different teams. If you watch CFB closely, you'll note that's not how it works.
YTTV is a great deal considering cost and convenience.
The picture quality doesn't show every blade of grass, but it's good. Once in a while there's a temporary loading issue, but not often and not for long.
Even better - it's had every UM game for years, and the price isn't crazy, and I only pay for it during football season b/c it's easy enough to stop and start for the 4 months I want, meaning that price is GREAT compared to year-round-services I don't want for 8 months.
Also the delayed viewing is very easy and utterly essential for me given family responsibilities.
All the new additions, both the 4 to thy B1G and the 2 to the SEC, slot in between the current Tier 1and Tier 2 groups is each conference.
While it won't stay that clean, I do think that is representative of the moves. These are teams that are good enough to be attractive additions, but not good enough to be happy staying where they were.
This sounds to me like two things.
1. Harbaugh loves competition, and if K Barnhart beats out Henderson for LT, the position is his.
2. K Barnhart is being prepared to be a 6th man who can play every position (or at least 4) on the line.
I would bet on Henderson winning the position from Barnhart down the line, but for everyone's sake (The Team, Henderson, Barnhart), Henderson has to clearly win that position - it can't be given to him. I would bet it looks a bit like JJ and Cade last year (but probably more in practice than in games, b/c I doubt ECU, UNLV, or BGSU will offer the competition to test their pass protection.
I like Klatt too, but have you not heard him talk about Colorado?
Plenty of homerism is on display. Not that I blame him - finding reason to be excited about your team after a decade or two of doldrums must feel amazing. Good for him.
But MIMark's criticism is no less damning for it. Regardless of the NCAA's actual power, litigating a cheeseburger while a 100yr old institutions fails is a sign of how ridiculous the NCAA is.
Yes, 4 million people watch regular season games when there's an awesome matchup. But there may not be 4 million people willing to watch every single Saturday even if there were an awesome matchup every single Saturday. They may have time or interest to watch 4 games a year or 6 games a year.
I wonder how much that story is actually about fans being unable to articulate what they want.
As an example, I'm continually amazed how my family members are unable to answer question like "why did you like that movie?" with anything beyond "It was fun," or "I like "_" character," or regurgitating plot points.
Despite that, they do have clear preferences. They just can't put them into words.
I hate the talking heads too, and have never watched anything beyond live games or SportsCenter on ESPN.
HOWEVER, I don't think this is a mindless choice by ESPN. They know many viewers hate the talking heads, but other viewers like them. And extra talking heads shows in a studio they already own and staff is likely to be cheaper than showing live action games - where new costs for travel, equipment, and a camera team are not negligible, particularly when ESPN has branded itself an super high quality visuals.
I'd prefer camel racing over talking heads, but I bet you those talking heads are more profitable. Unfortunately.
Recent Comments
UM Hoops does show him as a junior.
You're making his point for him.
Duncan Robinson is one of the examples par excellence of Beilen employing that exact competitive advantage: "finding and developing talent other schools pass over."
This seemed crazy, so I looked it up.
In 2021, 54% of gun-related deaths in the US were suicides, while 43% were murders. (The last 3% were labeled as accidents, law enforcement, or undetermined circumstances)
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
This would be excellent fun.
Has Stephen Ross said something to make you mention him?
That makes so very much sense. Thank you for digging it out and sharing.
Farewell tours exist for a reason.
Announcing you are off to other projects next year doesn't need to inhibit a celebration for accomplishing your ultimate mission this year.
Who are the 2 top middle? Mason? Jenkins? Kenneth?
Mullings looked great AGAIN. There's plenty of reason to be excited about Hall. I'd love to have Edwards back, but even if he leaves, we'll be better than okay at RB. Maybe not best in conference anymore, but plenty talented.
Why should the players…
No.
Why should the players sacrifice their opportunity to play to fix this mess that coaches and administrators have created?
Yes our players are fine upstanding young men, and yes they probably believe in the righteousness of the cause, but they've practiced who knows how many 1000s of hours to compete at the highest level of football, and they get maybe 15 games this year (and only a couple that are even competitive).
These games are a once in a lifetime opportunity they can never give back. No one who isn't a player should suggest the players give up a game.
Great share - data that's both insightful and fun.
And I must say - I offer you my sympathies for that offense of yours. Really impressive from this perspective.
If someone were going to make up a story to explain the term, this is what that would sound like.
(much like that epic Ski-U-Mah explanation from MgoBlog times long gone by)
They aren't famous because they're exceptions.
They're famous b/c of the how universally clear it now is that real evidence for those things didn't exist.
That consensus is rare, b/c of what we've come to understand about human beliefs relate to facts and feelings.
On average, people tend to retain their beliefs in spite of any disproving facts, precisely because the commitment to feelings is stronger than the commitment to facts. That's not an exception, it's how human brains work.
In comments in Brian's front page thread, some were pointing the finger at Dudek.
So this is Dantonio's "secret formula", I assume?
Are you kidding? Do you watch football only for the final score or bragging rights?
Watching the variations in success game by game would be FASCINATING.
Observers could speculate endlessly regarding the impact of variables changing game by game. From easy obvious ones like weather and injuries, to subjective unmeasurables like momentum or ennui, to player improvement over time. Of course most interesting would be the watching strategic changes in the play-calling chess match, particularly as you watched the playbook grow early in the season.
You've had some excellent points in this long debate, but your increasing focus on picky details is really detracting from your primary point. You'd persuade lot more people if you found a way to be more gracious.
Given how the model…
This.
Given how the model shows UM superior to OSU in 3 of 4 phases, that's clearly true, particularly when our running advantage is huge, while OSU's passing advantage is not quite so large.
I wondered if this was due to the imbalance between passing and rushing in typical college games. That might explain things given that UM's superiority is in the phase of the game that typically provides less yards. But the (very simplistic) numbers didn't add up.
Assume a typical team passes for 238 yards/game and rushes for 156 yards/game.
57% better rush offense than 156 gives UM an extra ~90 rush yards.
40% better pass defense than 238 gives OSU an extra ~95 yards(takes away 95 yards from UM)
If we then did the math for UM's slight advantages in pass offense and rush defense, it would show UM with a clear yardage advantage in our simplistic model.
In sum - I think we should assume the model is fairly more sophisticated than an Associated Press game summary.
(I didn't bother to dig for high quality stats. These are from ncaa.com's 65th ranked FBS pass offense and rushing offense)
This feature has gotten better each week. And it was already great from the start.
My personal favorites this week were Lassie Ferentz and “hitting a rock with a rock and assuming that your rock is more rock than their rock.”
It's time for an Iowatch site tag!
I got the…
Thanks.
I got the foolishness of that MLB alignment then, but this context today really helps illuminate what should have been happening, and why that MLB alignment was even worse than I'd understood.
I love the addition of the trend chart.
It's not amazing visually, but that is the exact data point I my brain was demanding when I read your column the second week - SP+ rating change over time. Thanks for adding it.
That is the rational take.
But remember that game when Iowa put up 55 points on OSU after their offense was terrible all year long? Iowa can do that. It's like they pull a star in classic Mario, and suddenly they're temporarily powerful.
Colorado has been fun to watch.
But I see Oregon running over them (given the way CSU's OL and DL dominated Colorado's lines all game long).
Oregon by 21.
While that first sentence is true, the real issue is our absentee starters: Rod Moore, Makari Paige, and Will Johnson. If they come back, we're probably fine.
Are you using that blind stat comparison to suggest that Cade and Milton weren't that different in their last 140 attempts?
It shows exactly the opposite - the value provided is vastly different.
A 14/0 TD/INT ratio is light years ahead of a 5/6 TD/INT ratio. That kind of difference switches 4 W's into 4 L's. That Milton had yards & completion %s in striking distance doesn't move the needle.
Three cheers for Milton and his turnaround at Tennessee. May he succeed spectacularly this year. But in 2021, we were probably an 8-4 team in 2021 with him at QB, with BPONE reigning over us. Thank God for Cade.
Great visuals and section titles. I'll keep reading this.
It would be sad but also hilarious if after 25+ years at Iowa, Ferentz senior was forced out bc he broke some rules/commitments in order to keep his son in staff. And all this bc Ferentz junior was (truly terrible at his job, but) only slightly worse at his job than most Iowa OC's in the last century.
This is surprising news, but I think the headline is a bit misleading.
The O-line starting 5 may be confirmed (for now), but no coach quotes actually say that Barnhart and Hinton played better in these 2 games than Henderson and Jones did.
I think we all took this "Michigan Method" plan to mean that players get a chance to start and show what they've got in games. That really hasn't happened. It's pretty clear decisions are being made largely on the basis of practice time. That's fine, of course, but not what we all thought was being advertised to us.
Yes
Your Maryland writeup is too good.
YES.
And yes, diet Michigan
And yes, AMQHG
Yeah - that was way too generic to reflect UM-OSU.
I like the diary concept. Thanks for taking the time.
Question for the cosmos - Why does Penn State seems to be constitutionally unable to field a good OL?
Is Franklin really such a clone of Hoke (with a little upgrade, maybe)? A great recruiter, but not a great tactician and terrible at time-management, usually fields an excellent defense (except in the games they where blow up), but struggles to put it all together on offense, and the OL feels like a big reason why.
If he likes a challenge, then he will stay with Colorado and win with what he's got - i.e. enjoy the challenge.
Going to someone else with better resources and tools is the opposite of that - that's what you do when you want less challenge.
FSU's QB really made their offense go in the 1st half, but he also made 2 truly terrible decisions worse than any JJ made last year. I'm skeptical he's Heisman material.
I couldn't find it in my quick search, but there are clips of UM players on the sideline raising folding chairs in celebration during games the last year or two. It felt emblematic of the new era Brian's pointing to.
I'm not as down on him as many seem to be, but has he demonstrated any improvement during these last 3 years?
I'm genuinely curious. It seems like he arrived fully formed, and all performance variation we've seen is just statistical noise - luck and effects of opponent and teammate differences. But I haven't been watching these last 2 years closely at all.
You've identified asymmetry, and that's always worth looking into to double check. But you failed to identify anything that's actually wrong. You're just assuming it's wrong b/c it is asymmetric. That's a great way to get faulty analysis. And it's a really weak position for the level of critique you're pointing at the OP.
For myself, it seems clear after watching Moore and Graham that there is every reason to expect a leap. Jenkins is more about trusting insider talk. I myself am doubtful McGregor will take a leap, but there is a reasonable logic behind believing he will.
I do not know the OSU those players at all, so I have no idea whether it's reasonable to expect a leap there. Do you know? Or are you just expecting an equal amount of improvement between players on different teams. If you watch CFB closely, you'll note that's not how it works.
YTTV is a great deal considering cost and convenience.
The picture quality doesn't show every blade of grass, but it's good. Once in a while there's a temporary loading issue, but not often and not for long.
Even better - it's had every UM game for years, and the price isn't crazy, and I only pay for it during football season b/c it's easy enough to stop and start for the 4 months I want, meaning that price is GREAT compared to year-round-services I don't want for 8 months.
Also the delayed viewing is very easy and utterly essential for me given family responsibilities.
All the new additions, both the 4 to thy B1G and the 2 to the SEC, slot in between the current Tier 1and Tier 2 groups is each conference.
While it won't stay that clean, I do think that is representative of the moves. These are teams that are good enough to be attractive additions, but not good enough to be happy staying where they were.
These are both great data points to plot, and I'd enjoy seeing this updated weekly. I love the easy visual comparing conference strength.
I would recommend switching your data ordering on the 2nd graph so the top right quadrant is best - that's what our minds have been trained to expect.
…
I second those questions.
Not clear where Etta falls, but here's got like 50 lbs on Guy, so it's hard to see them in the same positions (though it certainly isn't impossible).
Lots of interesting stats there.
I'd be super interested in seeing what kind of Coaching Staff ratings you'd see for all of our favorite cast of misfits sideline characters.
I'd also love to compare it to MGoblog player ratings.
This sounds to me like two things.
1. Harbaugh loves competition, and if K Barnhart beats out Henderson for LT, the position is his.
2. K Barnhart is being prepared to be a 6th man who can play every position (or at least 4) on the line.
I would bet on Henderson winning the position from Barnhart down the line, but for everyone's sake (The Team, Henderson, Barnhart), Henderson has to clearly win that position - it can't be given to him. I would bet it looks a bit like JJ and Cade last year (but probably more in practice than in games, b/c I doubt ECU, UNLV, or BGSU will offer the competition to test their pass protection.
I like Klatt too, but have you not heard him talk about Colorado?
Plenty of homerism is on display. Not that I blame him - finding reason to be excited about your team after a decade or two of doldrums must feel amazing. Good for him.
But…
All you say is true.
But MIMark's criticism is no less damning for it. Regardless of the NCAA's actual power, litigating a cheeseburger while a 100yr old institutions fails is a sign of how ridiculous the NCAA is.
Your sarcasm meter is really in need of some help.
I doubt that would actually work.
Yes, 4 million people watch regular season games when there's an awesome matchup. But there may not be 4 million people willing to watch every single Saturday even if there were an awesome matchup every single Saturday. They may have time or interest to watch 4 games a year or 6 games a year.
At some point, you'd hit a saturation point.
I wonder how much that story is actually about fans being unable to articulate what they want.
As an example, I'm continually amazed how my family members are unable to answer question like "why did you like that movie?" with anything beyond "It was fun," or "I like "_" character," or regurgitating plot points.
Despite that, they do have clear preferences. They just can't put them into words.
It seems MGOBLOG's dabbling in Marxism has extended beyond DTs.
(see your latest HTTV for reference)
I hate the talking heads too, and have never watched anything beyond live games or SportsCenter on ESPN.
HOWEVER, I don't think this is a mindless choice by ESPN. They know many viewers hate the talking heads, but other viewers like them. And extra talking heads shows in a studio they already own and staff is likely to be cheaper than showing live action games - where new costs for travel, equipment, and a camera team are not negligible, particularly when ESPN has branded itself an super high quality visuals.
I'd prefer camel racing over talking heads, but I bet you those talking heads are more profitable. Unfortunately.
Yes. I saw exactly that on a highlight reel recently, though I don't have a link for you.
But it is probably there to be found on YouTube for anyone with persistence,